이 논문은 다사다난하고 혼탁한 시대에 아름다운 이야기를 하고 싶어 시작하였다. 조선후기 탄생한 󰡔창선감의록󰡕은 마음의 근원에서 진실되게 용서하는 것을 보여주는 소설이다. 󰡔창선감의록󰡕에서 용서는 서로서로 화해할 마음을 가질 때 가능한 것임을 깨우쳐주었다. 후에 악인 화춘과 심씨는 진심으로 죄를 자백하고 화진과의 관계를 회복하였다. 화진은 악인들의 잘못을 스스로 바로잡고자 애를 쓰지 않았다. 그는 악인들이 질 책임은 하늘에 맡겼다. 그는 서로가 회복될 때까지 오직 그들의 악행을 견디고 참았다. 단, 화진 자신은 일희일비하지 않고 하루하루 인간애와 충효를 다하였다. 작가는 작품 말미에 ‘이것이 인간의 본성이다’라고 명시하였다. 따라서 이 작품은 우리의 본성을 살 때 참된 용서와 회복이 일어난다는 것을 가르쳐주었다.

The use of AI chatbots in frontline customer service is beneficial as it can provide quick service responses, cost-saving on human employees and accelerate customers’ decision-making process. However, implementing chatbots can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, companies benefit from the use of chatbots. On the other hand, it may hurt customer experience as customers perceive chatbots are less trustworthy and show less social presence. Service failures today have become more unpredictable with the increasing complexity of social environments. Aligning with the trends of online customer service, customers are most likely to encounter a chatbot when seeking online customer service to solve service failures. With most of the previous literature investigating customers’ perceptions of chatbots and chatbot-related service failures, little research has focused on the area where chatbots as service recovery agents and how customers perceive the use of chatbots handling their service requests after service failures.

Negative brand events can significantly harm the brand, affecting consumer cognitions, emotions, and behavior, leading to negative brand evaluations, negative emotions, brand avoidance, and retaliation. Thus, it is critical for brands to design and implement strategies that promote consumer forgiveness to mitigate those negative consumer responses. Despite the growing literature on the determinant factors of consumer behavior in a brand failure context, there is still scarce evidence regarding the impact of brand type on consumer responses, including consumer forgiveness, following a negative brand event. Considering that consumers tend to react differently to a brand perceived as arrogant (making them feel inferior), as opposed to a brand they strongly identify with, this paper focuses on failures of equal vs. higher status brands and investigates their impact on consumer forgiveness. Following the above, we expect that differences in brand status can shape consumer behavior following a failure or transgression.

This study takes the perspective of a brand introducing its own second-hand products to the re-commerce market. The project finds that consumers are more willing to forgive a transgressing second-hand product compared to a new product, which leads to lower negative word-of-mouth. The relationship is mediated by the underdog effect.

본 연구의 목적은 귀인이론에 근거하여 비인격적 감독을 상사 탓으로 돌리는 부하의 경우 상사에 대한 분노와 공격성이 강화될 것이고, 자신의 탓으로 돌리는 부하는 비인격적 대우를 당함에도 불구하고 상사에 대한 연민의 감정과 용서의 행동에 긍정적일 것임을 실증적으로 검증하는데 있다. 비인격적 감독이라는 자극에 반응하는 부하직원의 감정과 행동을 귀인이론의 핵심인 사건(비인격적 감독)의 원인에 대한 파악과 연관 지어 이해하는데 그 의의가 있다. 따라서 본 논문은 부하가 자신에게 가해진 비인격적 대우의 원인을 어디로 돌리는 지에 관한 귀인의 대상이 어떻게 부하의 다양한 감정과 반응에 영향을 줄 수 있는지에 관한 조절된 매개 연구모형을 테스트하였다. 329명의 설문 응답을 분석한 결과, 비인격적 감독이 상사에 대한 연민을 통해 상사에 대한 용서와 간접적으로 관련이 있다는 것을 발견했다. 또한 자기귀 인이 상사에 대한 연민을 통해 상사에 대한 용서로 이어지는 간접 영향을 조절함을 발견했다. 본 논문의 연구결과는 비인격적 감독으로부터 기인하는 부하의 다양한 감정과 행동의 관계를 밝히며, 특히 부하의 상사에 대한 연민과 용서라는 새로운 개념을 검증한 점에서 이론적 시사점을 제공한다. 이상의 결과와 시시점을 바탕으로 본 연구는 비인격적 감독의 피해자중 왜 일부는 침묵하고 일부는 그렇지 않은지에 대한 이유와 메커니즘을 보여줌으로써 비인격적 감독 연구 분야에 기여한다.

영화 『밀양』은 고통과 용서라는 실존적 문제와 관련하여 그리스도교 신학적 성찰의 기회를 제공한다. 신애는 그리스도교 신앙을 자신의 고통을 회피하는 도 구로 사용하고, 하느님께 살인범에 대한 용서의 권한을 빼앗겼다고 분노한다. 그러나 그리스도교 신학은 용서의 문제에 있어서 인간과 하느님은 경쟁 관계에 있는 것이 아니라, ‘인간이 되신 하느님이신 예수 그리스도의 사랑’의 도움으로 충만한 용서가 가능함을 강조한다. 고통의 문제와 관련하여 그리스도교 신앙은 예수 그리스도의 십자가와 부활 사건을 통해 계시된 ‘우리와 함께 아파하시는 하느님의 사랑’ 안에서 우리 자신을 있는 그대로 받아들이고, 고통을 치유하도 록 초대한다. 교회 공동체는 예수 그리스도의 모범을 따라 고통 중에 있는 이들 에게 신앙을 강요하기보다는, 그들의 고통에 공감하고 끝까지 동참해야 할 필요 가 있다. 살인범의 잘못된 회개와 관련하여, 진실한 회개는 하느님의 용서를 통 해, 피해자에게 충분한 용서를 청하도록 이끈다는 점을 그리스도교 신앙은 강조 한다. 이러한 고통과 용서의 문제에 관한 그리스도교 신학적 대답들은, 영화 마 지막 장면인 하수구에 비치는 ‘비밀스런 햇빛(密陽)’처럼 인간으로 하여금 고통 중에서도 함께 하시는 하느님의 현존에 대해 발견할 수 있는 여운을 남긴다.

This research was conducted in order to examine the effect of brand status and brand crisis types on consumers’ forgiveness intention. In this research, we proposed and found that the favorable attitude toward the underdog referred as underdog effect (Paharia, Keinan, Avery, & Schor, 2011) would be diluted especially in relational-related failure. When relationship efforts and perceived warmth of the brand are particularly critical, service failure caused by highly identified underdog brand can be perceived to be more serious (Vandello, Goldschmied, & Richards, 2007). Four of the studies consistently demonstrated our assumption in that people expressed less forgiveness intention on underdog brands when the crisis is in a service failure (vs. product failure): study1 and 2, service process failure (vs. service outcome failure): study 3, and human service process failure (vs. non-human service process failure): 4. Further, the mechanism underlying this negative effect toward the underdog was revealed as perceived anger. These findings can give insights to marketers that the types of crisis and the way of brand positioning are very critical to influence customer’s forgiveness intention.

본 연구의 목적은 종교에 있어서 용서의 본질에 대한 문제를 탐구하는 것이 다. 이청준은 자신의 소설에서 삶의 의미에 대한 문제를 제기하는 경향이 있다. 『벌레 이야기』는 용서와 구원을 통해서 진정한 인간의 삶이 무엇인지를 독자들 에게 묻는다. 『벌레 이야기』는 관찰자가 각 장면을 선택하고 배열함으로써 사 건을 입증하는 방식을 취한다. ‘나’는 이 작품에서 발생하는 모든 사건들을 설 명하고, 검토한다. ‘나’의 증언에 따르면, 아내는 아이의 죽음을 잊어버리기 위 해서 종교에 귀의하지만, 무기력하게 종교의 희생자가 되었다. 『벌레 이야기』는 진정한 용서, 인간 존재, 그리고 인간의 존엄성에 대한 의문을 제기한다. 아 내는 고통스러운 현실을 잊어버리기 위해서 자살을 감행하지만, 그녀의 자살은 삶의 모든 것을 포기하는 것이 아니라, 그녀를 억압하는 관계와 현실로부터 도 피함으로써 현실에서 실존성을 찾고자 하는 것이다. 작가는 이 작품에서 억압적 이고 엄격한 종교를 제시하고 있다. 결국, 이청준은 인간 존엄성의 중요성과 도 덕적 가치에 바탕을 둔 양심을 강조하고 있다.

Introduction The concept of forgiveness has been in the centre of research within the psychology domain for a number of years (e.g., Burnette, McCullough, Van Tongeren, & Davis, 2012; Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010; Mauger, Perry, Freeman, & Grove, 1992). It is surprising, however, that despite the relevance of forgiveness in marketing, the concept has failed to attract much attention and research in this area remains scarce. Few studies have looked into the importance of forgiveness in the context of marketing transgressions (Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004; Chung & Beverland, 2006; Mattila, 2001; Tax, Brown, & Chandrashekaran, 1998) and have largely focused on the services sector (e.g., Gudlaugsson & Eysteinsson, 2013; Zourrig, Chebat, & Toffoli, 2009). This study takes a broader perspective and addresses forgiveness at the brand level. Looking into consumer brand forgiveness is critical in that consumers often tend to evaluate and build relationships at the brand level rather than the firm level (Fournier, 1998). This research adopts a multi-method, multi-stage approach to conceptualise and operationalise brand forgiveness. Literature Review Forgiveness in the psychology literature has been defined as ‘the willful giving up of resentment in the face of another’s (or others’) considerable injustice and responding with beneficence to the offender even though that offender has no right to the forgiver’s moral goodness’ (Baskin & Enright, 2004, p. 80). Most of the literature on interpersonal forgiveness supports a multi-dimensional structure, consisting of affective, cognitive and behavioural components (e.g., McCullough, Worthington Jr, & Rachal, 1997). Interestingly, forgiveness in psychology has been seen as a relationship-constructive mechanism, similar to accommodation (Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991) and willingness to sacrifice (Van Lange et al., 1997). It can also be understood as a psychological factor that is associated with restored relational closeness following an interpersonal transgression, in that it leads to the inhibition of avoidant behaviors and the facilitation of conciliatory behaviors (McCullough et al., 1997), as well as cooperation (Komorita, Hilty, & Parks, 1991) following interpersonal offenses. Despite the fact that most of the literature examines forgiveness following a specific offense, the concept has also a dispositional character, which very few studies addressed (e.g., Berry, Worthington, Parrott, O’Connor, & Wade, 2001).Forgiveness in the marketing domain has mostly been investigated in the context of services failures (e.g., Tsarenko & Tojib, 2011; Zourrig et al., 2009). Most of the research in this area relates to the concept of consumer forgiveness, which is defined as ‘consumers’ willingness to give up retaliation, alienation, and other destructive behaviours, and to respond in constructive ways after an organisational violation of trust and the related recovery efforts’ (Xie & Peng, 2009, p. 578). This definition highlights the behavioural component of forgiveness and fails to capture the cognitive and emotional aspects encapsulated in the concept (McCullough et al., 1997). In addition, the focus on ‘organizational violation’ is highly problematic as consumers often tend to evaluate and build relationships at the brand level rather than the firm level (Fournier, 1994). Transgressions addressed in the existing literature include moderately fit brand extensions (Fedorikhin, Park, & Thomson, 2008), negative PR (Xie & Peng, 2009) and delayed product launches (Herm, 2013). When conceptualising consumer forgiveness, Chung and Beverland (2006) suggested that the process of forgiveness provides a foundation for relationship restoration, which ultimately results in rebuilding trust (Chung & Beverland, 2006; Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). Methodology Consistent with Churchill’s paradigm (1979) for scale development, qualitative data was first collected using 16 in-depth interviews with British consumers to better understand the concept of brand forgiveness and to identify pertinent dimensions. The interviews lasted on average 40 minutes. Based on the literature and the interviews an initial pool of items tapping consumer brand forgiveness was created. A questionnaire was subsequently developed that included the aforementioned item pool as well as demographic and nomological network variables. Data was collected in the UK using an online consumer panel. 603 fully completed questionnaires were returned. In line with scaling procedures (Chrurchill 1979) we divided the sample into two sub-samples: calibration (n=302) and validation (n=301). Results and Discussion The qualitative data supported the three-dimensional structure of consumer-brand forgiveness, which is consistent with the conceptualisation of interpersonal forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1997). For example issues regarding disappointment for the brand’s wrongdoing, impact on evaluations as well as intentions to switch to another brand emerged from the interviews. In line with our findings and extant research in this area, we define consumer brand forgiveness as the consumer’s cognitive, affective and behavioural response to a brand’s (perceived) wrongdoing. The quantitative data was used to confirm the dimensionality of the construct and develop a scale that measures consumer brand forgiveness. CFA was performed on the calibration sample and through an iterative process an acceptable fit was obtained; χ2 (24)= 70.495; GFI= .95; CFI= .98, TLI= .97, RMSEA= .08. Internal consistency and composite reliabilities were also within acceptable levels; α= .79, CR= .83 (cognitive), α= .85, CR= .86 (affective) and α= .96, CR= .96 (behavioural).CFA was then performed on the validation sample and acceptable fit was once again obtained; χ2 (24)= 70.800; GFI= .95; CFI= .98, TLI= .96, RMSEA= .08. All internal consistency and composite reliabilities were above .70; α= .82, CR= .82 (cognitive), α= .82, CR= .82 (affective) and α= .94, CR= .94 (behavioural). Convergent and discriminant validities were established using Fornell and Larcker’s criteria (1981). Table 1 provides a summary of the CFA results. The next step involved criterion-related validity tests, where two variables were drawn from relevant literature from both the psychology and the marketing literature, including brand love and relationship satisfaction. Regression analysis shows that brand forgiveness results in brand love (β= .32, p< .01) as well as relationship satisfaction (β= .69, p< .01). This confirms existing literature that forgiveness can lead to positive emotions (Takaku, 2001) and satisfaction with the relationship (McCullough et al., 1998). Conclusion and Implications for Theory and Practice Despite extensive research on interpersonal forgiveness, there is very little scholarly enquiry into forgiveness in the marketing domain. This is an important area for marketers to understand since forgiveness is likely to result into stronger relationships whilst the lack of it is may have detrimental effects on customer retention and advocacy. This study contributes in this area by providing an enriched conceptualisation of consumer brand forgiveness in the context of a brand’s wrongdoing and by developing a psychometrically sound scale that measures the levels of consumers’ brand forgiveness. Following a multi-stage methodology, our results establish a three-dimensional structure of consumer brand forgiveness, encompassing cognitive, affective and behavioural elements. The study also provides some initial insights into the consequences of forgiveness. Positive outcomes, such as brand love and relationship satisfaction are important outcomes of brand forgiveness. Following from these results, some important managerial implications could be identified. For example, managers could benefit significantly from reinforcing forgiveness, as this could lead to stronger ties with the brand and increased levels of satisfaction. A brand’s wrongdoing that subsequently results in affective, cognitive and behavioural forgiveness on the part of the consumer will benefit the brand. Managers should therefore not only focus their recovery strategies on behavioural forgiveness but also target strategies to ensure affective and cognitive forgiveness. Managers who are successful in building strong relationships with their customers might be more able to promote consumer brand forgiveness and therefore enjoy the positive benefits of the process. Therefore, CRM programs could be very useful in strengthening the relationships with customers and therefore have a greater likelihood of forgiveness should a wrongdoing occurs.